Seems like the only complaint to be made here is that there wasn't a male stripper on stand by on the off chance a female attendee showed up.
Not just that, but a 100% straight, Kinsey Zero, female. Every single girl I've dated, and plenty that I just know casually would take a lapdance from a hot naked chick over a lapdance from an overly buff twink.
Ah yes, but some point in the next decade or two your daughter's daughter will... That's the Disney Machine in action.
Just make a few custom DVDs, or blu-rays or mkv files with the occasional scene from Hellraiser or Halloween cut in the middle of a few disney movies. After the granddaughter watches a couple of those, she will be scared shitless of disney and will probably quickly learn to how to turn off the television anytime a disney commercial comes on.
Perhaps you are thinking of ATI (AMD), who have opened most of their specs (minus some video acceleration bits that are supposedly required to be kept secret for patent reasons). Please correct me if this has changed.
If you dig around in the articles on Phoronix, you'll find ATI saying that the reason they won't release those specs is not because of patents but because they think it would compromise their DRM implementation on Windows because they tightly coupled their DRM crap with the video decode acceleration. They also said in their next revision of hardware (which ought to be shipping by now, it's been over a year) they had decoupled those parts and would be releasing the info for video decode acceleration on the new chips. I don't think they have released it yet though.
not surprising because the OS really can't do that much to improve (or mess up) the performance of user-mode code that isn't making many OS calls anyways.
Others have already mentioned scheduling and cache thrashing, I'd like to add memory management. There are lots of ways memory management choices can degrade performance, sometimes drastically.
One example is page sizes and the TLB - each cpu has a hardware TLB which is like a cache of virtual page to physical page address maps. Hardware TLB look-ups are fast, but the TLB is only of limited size and when a virtual address is not in the hardware TLB, the OS has to take a fault and walk its own software-maintained TLB that holds the complete list of virt2phys translations. That's a couple of orders magnitude slower than getting it from the hardware TLB.
One way to reduce TLB misses is to use larger pages. So an OS that is smart enough to automagically coalesce 4K pages to 4MB (or larger, depending on the hardware) pages can significantly improve TLB performance. In a pathological case, that could result in a 100x-1000x speed-up, in typical cases where it is going make an difference you'll probably see ~10% performance improvement.
Another related example is how shared memory is handled. Every page of virtual memory has a PTE which, at the most basic level, contains the virt2phys translation. When shared memory is used, a decision must be made - are the PTEs shared, or does each process get a separate copy of the PTEs for the shared memory. Downside of sharing PTEs is that the shared memory must be mapped at exactly the same virtual address in each process that uses it, so if one of those processes already has something else at that address, it won't be able to use the shared memory. The downside of using separate copies of PTEs is that you can really suck up a lot memory for just the PTE list -- imagine 50 processes that all share on chunk of 100MB of memory, if they all get their own PTE copies for that 100MB its the equivalent of 5GB worth of PTEs. If a PTE itself takes up 32 bytes, then that's at least 40MB of PTE entries just to manage that 100MB of memory. A 40% overhead is huge and then there is the issue of hardware TLB misses which, depending on the implementation, may have to search all PTEs in the system, so the more PTEs the worse a TLB miss will hurt performance.
As an example how do you expect the community to be able to fix bugs and keep old drivers up-to-date (two of GPs points) when the source is not available?
A real community would be dedicated enough to write binary patches. Only pussies use compilers.
You are too late to the party. Just about every one of your points has already been brought up and fully shown to be irrational in this thread already.
Care to elucidate? I can't think of any part of the Bible where it says engaging in homosexual sex is not a sin.
The point is that there are a million other things in the bible that these people almost certainly aren't obeying themselves. The most hypocritical being Matthew 7 - judge not lest ye be judged - as in get your own shit together before you start worrying about other people.
I like having the ability to use a rope, even if I might use it to tie a noose around my neck. There is little reason to take away a very useful feature from many users just because a handful of thoughtless users shoot themselves in the foot.
How is this significantly more useful than running the user through a procedure that explicitly makes an independent copy of the data that is fully disconnected from the user's private data storage, just like forwarding a file via email does?
I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "hate" here. Someone may be against gay marriage because they believe it's sinful, but that doesn't mean they hate the practitioners... just that they want it not to be legal because they think it's wrong. See the difference?
Ah, the old hate the sin, love the sinner dodge.
Also completely hypocritical for lots of reasons. For example people like that can't justify why they hate the sin without running into the original problem of picking and choosing what parts of their holy book they decide to follow and what parts they decide to ignore.
What I didn't posit was that gays shouldn't be entitled to the same statuses and benefits through other means.
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, its a duck. If your only objection is to the NAME of something that is otherwise identical, then you aren't really objecting at all.
Almost all married couples eventually have children.
I'm afraid you'll need to back that one up. 19% of women 40-44 are childless in the USA I would be surprised if less than quarter of them were unmarried, and yet that's going to be at least twice the number of potential gay marriages.
Maybe these benefits should be scaled back or more closely tied to the children,
Bingo. If marriage is really about kids then tying it to something non-kid is completely hypocritical.
Therefore that person would see gay-marriage as hurting other people. Since that person loves other people, and doesn't want to see them hurt, they do everything they can to prevent the person from entering into a gay-marriage.
Of course you would say that that person shouldn't force their beliefs on other people.
Uh yeah. Unless this person is happy to accept everyone else in the world forcing their beliefs upon himself, in a loving way of course, then he's a hypocrite.
And as is the case with electronic music, most of the time the input REALLY sucks...
Try some Shpongle. Tales of the Inexpressible is a good album to start with, stand-out tracks include "Dorset Perception," "Star-Shpongled Banner" and "Around the World in a Tea Daze." Lots of Floyd influence in their stuff. Just be sure to get a decent bitrate, don't even bother with the stuff on youtube -- way too low bitrate to get a full appreciation. Maybe streaming from last.fm or pandora, or you can get full bitrate copies via piratebay and if you like it, buy it from their website http://www.twistedrecords.co.uk/ (don't bother with the streaming samples there, only 64kbps and too short anyway).
I want an electronic compression detector that will severely reduce the volume of all compressed audio. I would hook that to my tv speakers so that I don't get blasted out of the room every time commercials come on.
And there isn't any other good way to accomplish the same goal.
I already spelled one out - make copies and do it explicitly, everybody understands the full implications of copying something and sending it on to someone or somewhere else. The file sizes are trivial, so that's not an issue. Make copies with a URL that has no connection to the original source.
Human wouldn't have male or female if not because of reproduction. And marriage wouldn't exist without that.
Ah, the old marriage is for procreation-only argument. Unless you are willing to deny marriage to infertile couples and those who simply choose not to have children and also forbid adoption by anyone - singles and couples, gay and straight, you are just hiding behind bad logic.
Sorry, but I find the whole thing repulsive. Not because of the "ick factor", but because of the lust factor. Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. You are so emotionally wrapped up in your anger at your wife that you can't even put together a logical argument. You equate gay marriage with lust and sex - and yet marriage is not a requirement for lust or sex at all, if anything marriage is the opposite of lust and sex and a commitment to monogamy.
No one is standing on a corner asking for signatures to ban marriage altogether.
So... they are too lazy to put together their own petition for the full abolition of marriage, but signing a petition that only addresses about 2% of the issue and ignores 98% of it is just the amount of level of effort they are willing to commit to. That level of laziness qualifies as intellectually dishonest in my book.
Besides, the question wasn't about why they signed or didn't sign, it was why they oppose or don't oppose. Opposing all marriage requires no more work than just opposing gay marriage.
I don't believe the government should license marriage. Opposing "gay marriage" is a strategy to force government to abandon this practice.
I don't believe the government should be in the business of supporting the insolvent. Opposing "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" is a strategy to force government to abandon this practice. I'll worry about the hundreds of billions in corporate welfare once TANF is taken care of.
But none of those services is going to index a URL that a user didn't explicitly make public, even if the user was being stupid. I don't call that 'figuring out' because that implies some notion of obscurity that has to be peeled back.
Basically your position is "any accidents are the user's fault." That's a terribly brittle assumption, good security design takes into account failure modes - including human error, anticipates them and counters them. "Funny long URLs" are not obviously sensitive the way username/password pairs are, so right there the strongest defense against human error is wiped out. And not just the user's human error, there is easily the potential for someone at google to accidentally disclose these URLs because they don't know any better. Its also possible for them to end up in a browser's history on a multi-user/public system, probably lots more.
Ultimately you are arguing for a Pandora's Box's of security. Just because you can't think of a way for one of these URLs to leak out now doesn't mean someone else won't come up with a way to make it happen and once that's the case, there is no stuffing them back into the box of obscurity.
Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.
Someone who is against state involvement in people's relationships might well oppose all marriage.
Then opposing gay marriage without making the same, or even greater level of effort to oppose straight marriage (since it's already established and will require significantly more work to overturn) is intellectually dishonest.
Are you responding to my request for a rational reason to oppose gay marriage? Because if you are, I don't see it in your response.
Your point about societal contract for the support of offspring, prevention of VD via encouraging monogamy all apply to gay marriage too. Its not like gays don't adopt kids, monogamy reduces the spread of vd among gay people too.
Your point about property transfers applies equally to gay and straight marriage.
Your point about love marriage versus, what? arranged marraige? is also just applicable to gays as it is to anyone else.
So, in summary, either you meant to respond to someone else, or you really didn't think your arguments through very well.
People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays." They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.
Oh really? Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate. I've read lots and lots of the PR by the anti crowd and its either obviously hate-based, or completely dishonest (citing the bible with the hypocrisy of picking and choosing which passages are OK to ignore).
Links. The guy you responded to had tons of support for his point. You have none. No way in Hell I can use your post as a reference in similar debates. You went to all that trouble to spell it out, you must have sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like the only complaint to be made here is that there wasn't a male stripper on stand by on the off chance a female attendee showed up.
Not just that, but a 100% straight, Kinsey Zero, female. Every single girl I've dated, and plenty that I just know casually would take a lapdance from a hot naked chick over a lapdance from an overly buff twink.
Ah yes, but some point in the next decade or two your daughter's daughter will... That's the Disney Machine in action.
Just make a few custom DVDs, or blu-rays or mkv files with the occasional scene from Hellraiser or Halloween cut in the middle of a few disney movies. After the granddaughter watches a couple of those, she will be scared shitless of disney and will probably quickly learn to how to turn off the television anytime a disney commercial comes on.
Perhaps you are thinking of ATI (AMD), who have opened most of their specs (minus some video acceleration bits that are supposedly required to be kept secret for patent reasons). Please correct me if this has changed.
If you dig around in the articles on Phoronix, you'll find ATI saying that the reason they won't release those specs is not because of patents but because they think it would compromise their DRM implementation on Windows because they tightly coupled their DRM crap with the video decode acceleration. They also said in their next revision of hardware (which ought to be shipping by now, it's been over a year) they had decoupled those parts and would be releasing the info for video decode acceleration on the new chips. I don't think they have released it yet though.
not surprising because the OS really can't do that much to improve (or mess up) the performance of user-mode code that isn't making many OS calls anyways.
Others have already mentioned scheduling and cache thrashing, I'd like to add memory management. There are lots of ways memory management choices can degrade performance, sometimes drastically.
One example is page sizes and the TLB - each cpu has a hardware TLB which is like a cache of virtual page to physical page address maps. Hardware TLB look-ups are fast, but the TLB is only of limited size and when a virtual address is not in the hardware TLB, the OS has to take a fault and walk its own software-maintained TLB that holds the complete list of virt2phys translations. That's a couple of orders magnitude slower than getting it from the hardware TLB.
One way to reduce TLB misses is to use larger pages. So an OS that is smart enough to automagically coalesce 4K pages to 4MB (or larger, depending on the hardware) pages can significantly improve TLB performance. In a pathological case, that could result in a 100x-1000x speed-up, in typical cases where it is going make an difference you'll probably see ~10% performance improvement.
Another related example is how shared memory is handled. Every page of virtual memory has a PTE which, at the most basic level, contains the virt2phys translation. When shared memory is used, a decision must be made - are the PTEs shared, or does each process get a separate copy of the PTEs for the shared memory. Downside of sharing PTEs is that the shared memory must be mapped at exactly the same virtual address in each process that uses it, so if one of those processes already has something else at that address, it won't be able to use the shared memory. The downside of using separate copies of PTEs is that you can really suck up a lot memory for just the PTE list -- imagine 50 processes that all share on chunk of 100MB of memory, if they all get their own PTE copies for that 100MB its the equivalent of 5GB worth of PTEs. If a PTE itself takes up 32 bytes, then that's at least 40MB of PTE entries just to manage that 100MB of memory. A 40% overhead is huge and then there is the issue of hardware TLB misses which, depending on the implementation, may have to search all PTEs in the system, so the more PTEs the worse a TLB miss will hurt performance.
Europeans (and we immigrants) get all those "mini vacations" and then 3, 4 or 5 weeks of holiday a year (depending on the country).
No you don't. Euro houses average half the size of USA houses.
As an example how do you expect the community to be able to fix bugs and keep old drivers up-to-date (two of GPs points) when the source is not available?
A real community would be dedicated enough to write binary patches. Only pussies use compilers.
You are too late to the party. Just about every one of your points has already been brought up and fully shown to be irrational in this thread already.
Care to elucidate? I can't think of any part of the Bible where it says engaging in homosexual sex is not a sin.
The point is that there are a million other things in the bible that these people almost certainly aren't obeying themselves.
The most hypocritical being Matthew 7 - judge not lest ye be judged - as in get your own shit together before you start worrying about other people.
I like having the ability to use a rope, even if I might use it to tie a noose around my neck. There is little reason to take away a very useful feature from many users just because a handful of thoughtless users shoot themselves in the foot.
How is this significantly more useful than running the user through a procedure that explicitly makes an independent copy of the data that is fully disconnected from the user's private data storage, just like forwarding a file via email does?
I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "hate" here. Someone may be against gay marriage because they believe it's sinful, but that doesn't mean they hate the practitioners... just that they want it not to be legal because they think it's wrong. See the difference?
Ah, the old hate the sin, love the sinner dodge.
Also completely hypocritical for lots of reasons. For example people like that can't justify why they hate the sin without running into the original problem of picking and choosing what parts of their holy book they decide to follow and what parts they decide to ignore.
What I didn't posit was that gays shouldn't be entitled to the same statuses and benefits through other means.
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, its a duck. If your only objection is to the NAME of something that is otherwise identical, then you aren't really objecting at all.
Almost all married couples eventually have children.
I'm afraid you'll need to back that one up. 19% of women 40-44 are childless in the USA I would be surprised if less than quarter of them were unmarried, and yet that's going to be at least twice the number of potential gay marriages.
Maybe these benefits should be scaled back or more closely tied to the children,
Bingo. If marriage is really about kids then tying it to something non-kid is completely hypocritical.
Therefore that person would see gay-marriage as hurting other people. Since that person loves other people, and doesn't want to see them hurt, they do everything they can to prevent the person from entering into a gay-marriage.
Just like that justice of the peace in Louisiana. Only looking out for other people, what amazing selflessness.
Of course you would say that that person shouldn't force their beliefs on other people.
Uh yeah. Unless this person is happy to accept everyone else in the world forcing their beliefs upon himself, in a loving way of course, then he's a hypocrite.
And as is the case with electronic music, most of the time the input REALLY sucks...
Try some Shpongle. Tales of the Inexpressible is a good album to start with, stand-out tracks include "Dorset Perception," "Star-Shpongled Banner" and "Around the World in a Tea Daze." Lots of Floyd influence in their stuff. Just be sure to get a decent bitrate, don't even bother with the stuff on youtube -- way too low bitrate to get a full appreciation. Maybe streaming from last.fm or pandora, or you can get full bitrate copies via piratebay and if you like it, buy it from their website http://www.twistedrecords.co.uk/ (don't bother with the streaming samples there, only 64kbps and too short anyway).
I want an electronic compression detector that will severely reduce the volume of all compressed audio. I would hook that to my tv speakers so that I don't get blasted out of the room every time commercials come on.
Like this Terk VR-1?
And there isn't any other good way to accomplish the same goal.
I already spelled one out - make copies and do it explicitly, everybody understands the full implications of copying something and sending it on to someone or somewhere else. The file sizes are trivial, so that's not an issue. Make copies with a URL that has no connection to the original source.
Human wouldn't have male or female if not because of reproduction. And marriage wouldn't exist without that.
Ah, the old marriage is for procreation-only argument. Unless you are willing to deny marriage to infertile couples and those who simply choose not to have children and also forbid adoption by anyone - singles and couples, gay and straight, you are just hiding behind bad logic.
Sorry, but I find the whole thing repulsive. Not because of the "ick factor", but because of the lust factor. Marriage is supposed to be about more than sex, it's supposed to be about children, and gay marriage isn't about that.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. You are so emotionally wrapped up in your anger at your wife that you can't even put together a logical argument. You equate gay marriage with lust and sex - and yet marriage is not a requirement for lust or sex at all, if anything marriage is the opposite of lust and sex and a commitment to monogamy.
No one is standing on a corner asking for signatures to ban marriage altogether.
So... they are too lazy to put together their own petition for the full abolition of marriage, but signing a petition that only addresses about 2% of the issue and ignores 98% of it is just the amount of level of effort they are willing to commit to. That level of laziness qualifies as intellectually dishonest in my book.
Besides, the question wasn't about why they signed or didn't sign, it was why they oppose or don't oppose. Opposing all marriage requires no more work than just opposing gay marriage.
I don't believe the government should license marriage.
Opposing "gay marriage" is a strategy to force government to abandon this practice.
I don't believe the government should be in the business of supporting the insolvent.
Opposing "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" is a strategy to force government to abandon this practice.
I'll worry about the hundreds of billions in corporate welfare once TANF is taken care of.
But none of those services is going to index a URL that a user didn't explicitly make public, even if the user was being stupid. I don't call that 'figuring out' because that implies some notion of obscurity that has to be peeled back.
Basically your position is "any accidents are the user's fault." That's a terribly brittle assumption, good security design takes into account failure modes - including human error, anticipates them and counters them. "Funny long URLs" are not obviously sensitive the way username/password pairs are, so right there the strongest defense against human error is wiped out. And not just the user's human error, there is easily the potential for someone at google to accidentally disclose these URLs because they don't know any better. Its also possible for them to end up in a browser's history on a multi-user/public system, probably lots more.
Ultimately you are arguing for a Pandora's Box's of security. Just because you can't think of a way for one of these URLs to leak out now doesn't mean someone else won't come up with a way to make it happen and once that's the case, there is no stuffing them back into the box of obscurity.
Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate.
Someone who is against state involvement in people's relationships might well oppose all marriage.
Then opposing gay marriage without making the same, or even greater level of effort to oppose straight marriage (since it's already established and will require significantly more work to overturn) is intellectually dishonest.
How is that not obvious?
Are you responding to my request for a rational reason to oppose gay marriage? Because if you are, I don't see it in your response.
Your point about societal contract for the support of offspring, prevention of VD via encouraging monogamy all apply to gay marriage too. Its not like gays don't adopt kids, monogamy reduces the spread of vd among gay people too.
Your point about property transfers applies equally to gay and straight marriage.
Your point about love marriage versus, what? arranged marraige? is also just applicable to gays as it is to anyone else.
So, in summary, either you meant to respond to someone else, or you really didn't think your arguments through very well.
People who are opposed to same-sex marriage don't necessarily "hate on gays." They're just... opposed to same-sex marriage.
Oh really? Name one intellectually honest reason for someone to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in hate. I've read lots and lots of the PR by the anti crowd and its either obviously hate-based, or completely dishonest (citing the bible with the hypocrisy of picking and choosing which passages are OK to ignore).
Links. The guy you responded to had tons of support for his point.
You have none.
No way in Hell I can use your post as a reference in similar debates.
You went to all that trouble to spell it out, you must have sources.